Tony Morris wrote: > As a side note, I think a direct superclass of Functor for Monad is not > a good idea, just sayin' > > class Functor f where > fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b > > class Functor f => Apply f where > (<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b > > class Apply f => Bind f where > (=<<) :: (a -> f b) -> f a -> f b > > class Apply f => Applicative f where > unit :: a -> f a > > class (Applicative f, Bind f) => Monad f where > > Same goes for Comonad (e.g. [] has (=<<) but not counit) > ... and again for Monoid, Category, I could go on...
Hi Tony even though I dismissed your mentioning this on the Haskell' list, I do have to admit that the proposal has a certain elegance. However, before I buy into this scheme, I'd like to see some striking examples for types with natural (or at least useful) Apply and Bind instances that cannot be made Applicative resp. Monad. Also, it is not clear to me what laws should hold for them. Cheers -- Ben Franksen () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
